Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,675   Posts: 1,481,932   Online: 1097
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42
  1. #21
    Eric Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Calgary AB, Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,208
    Images
    73
    how about the mom in Texas that got busted for taking photos of her kids in the bathtub? a little too zealous IMHO. a lot of what cheryl does could be considered kiddy porn by these pruds.
    www.ericrose.com
    yourbaddog.com

    "civility is not a sign of weakness" JFK

    "The Dude abides" - the Dude

  2. #22
    Digidurst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    SC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    629
    Images
    10
    I agree, Eric, I think that is way over the top. I have pictures of my son in his birthday suit doing this that and the other thing. Am I going to publish them for the world to see? No! They are in the family album (where they belong) to be taken out when I want to show my son's future wife/partner what a cutie she's/he's married to. Do I feel like my rights are infringed upon because these pictures will never be published - even if they are examples of some of the best portraiture I've ever done? No! It's worth to protect my son and it's worth it to protect ALL children.

    It's kinda like driving a car and obeying the speed limit... Driving is something that I happen to be good at. I would be thrilled if our lawmakers, in their infinite wisdom, would pass a law stating that if you can pass a specialized driving test, you can drive as fast as you want. Are they going to do that? No! Because there are enough folks driving around with their head's shoved where the sun doesn't shine that regardless of my driving ability, my fast speed would be a danger to others. Are my rights infringed upon because I have to obey traffic laws? Heck yeah! But I get over it because it is for the greater good.

    So, call me a goody-two-shoes, right wing conservative moralist, prude... your choice. Judging by what goes on in this world on a daily basis, I think it's about darn time more people started taking the moral high ground.

  3. #23
    garryl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    542
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Digidurst
    So, call me a goody-two-shoes, right wing conservative moralist, prude... your choice. Judging by what goes on in this world on a daily basis, I think it's about darn time more people started taking the moral high ground.
    So if they pass a law that, because any nudity is a turn on to perverts, that ALL
    art that shows a nake child has to be burned- are you going to take the "moral high ground" , walk into the museums ,and strike the first match?
    "Just because nobody complains doesn't mean all parachutes are perfect."

  4. #24
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    This is one of the few "civilized" countries where nudity is considered sexual.

    All those nutballs expelled from Europe a few hundred years ago are still haunting us.

    In repressed societies where any female public display of skin is banned there are undoubtedly people whacking off to the inadvertant display of an ankle.

    Due to this religious fetish of being afraid of our bodies perhaps that is where the fear is generated from.

    A small minority of people are wired to sexualize children. Should everyone be punished or censored because of this tiny group.


    Michael
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Sarajevo
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,801
    I allways wander how companies like Pampers or Johnson Johnson don't get in trouble for theire TV commercials in which adults applying baby oil on naked babies or babies walking around naked only wearing diapers. And nobody accuse those companies for paedophilia. But i belive those companies have enough money and power(law or political) to avoid accusations, and it is easier to attack individual artist (painter or photographer) than powerfull companies...

    And what about child labour, I mean using children in movies, fashion business, political campaigns? How nobody protest against misusing children in labour. I mean, if it is forbiden working for child under let say 15 years, how you can have 10 years old child as actor(tress) in move or commercial, or when polititian kiss a child on bilboard in olitical campaign. Isn't that child labour and misusing? And if it is, are we talking about double standards...

    How 13 years old naked girl on David Hamilton's photograph is indecency or paedophilia and 1 year old naked child in arms of also naked 20 years old female actress in TV commercial for baby oil or shampoo is not?

  6. #26
    Digidurst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    SC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    629
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by garryl
    So if they pass a law that, because any nudity is a turn on to perverts, that ALL
    art that shows a nake child has to be burned- are you going to take the "moral high ground" , walk into the museums ,and strike the first match?
    Of course not! Please try to understand what I'm trying to say... Michael, if I may use your most eloquent quote, "This is one of the few "civilized" countries where nudity is considered sexual."
    That is the problem in a nutshell. Being naked IS NOT in and of itself sexual. Technically, we should all (men, women, children, cats, everybody!) be able to run around naked and it shouldn't be a problem. What are clothes for? To protect our skin from the elements. But we can't all run around naked because of the prevailing attitude that if we are nude, then we are only looking to "get some". It couldn't possibly be because we enjoy the feeling of sunshine on our skin.
    So my point is that if we lived in a more open minded society, if criminals were more appropriately punished for their crimes, if we didn't have to worry about pedophiles getting off on mass produced art that is just close enough to child pornography IN THEIR MINDS to allow them to get off then it wouldn't be an issue.
    We don't live in that kind of world. We have to protect our children. The law is not going to do it for us - hell, the law allows sick monsters out on the streets! So there is one tiny aspect of 'art' that we do not make available because it is just one small control we have in the variable. Children are beautiful beings - it's no wonder they are popular subjects. But there is no reason in the world to eroticize (sp?) them on film.

  7. #27
    garryl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    542
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Digidurst
    But there is no reason in the world to eroticize (sp?) them on film.
    This one statement tells me that I'm wasting my time trying to convince you that fear of a "maybe" is no excuse to ban a whole genre' of art. That nude child photography is polluted because of "guilt by association". Therefore I'll not comment further.
    "Just because nobody complains doesn't mean all parachutes are perfect."

  8. #28
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    In any free society there comes attached with it the condition of responsibility. I see naked women in magazines, does not mean that I can rape. I see diamonds in a window does not mean that I can steal.

    If we want freedom we must accept the fact that we have to control our behavior. If we want others telling us what to do then we just admit that we are unable to police ourselves.

    Child porn is a tricky one. In fact porn of all types is tricky. Are there victims, or aren't there.

    If someone can not control themselves and molest children or adults then they need to be removed from society. To ban everything from lingerie ads to photos of kids frolicking in a wading pool is not acceptable in a free society.

    The people who want to do this are zealots who are usually tied into some religious group that want everything legislated.

    Not a great idea in a free society.


    Michael
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  9. #29
    127
    127 is offline
    127's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    uk
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by Digidurst
    So there is one tiny aspect of 'art' that we do not make available because it is just one small control we have in the variable.
    trouble is it's not just one small area - if you're going to restrict something because a VANISHINGLY SMALL minority will find it erotic, then you're setting a precident that even you can't live with.

    If we've learnt one thing from the web it's that given any subject, if you look hard enough you'll find some (or more likely a large group of people!) who get off on it.

    All forms of shoes should be banned immediatly. Undergarments are a real problem - we obviously have to restrict them as many people find them erotic, but then people wouldn't be able to wear them, and other people would find that erotic.

    Well even if we can't sort all that stuff out, the least we can do is ban the bible - that's the number one favourite read of your preditory psychopath.

    Maybe we should just lock up all the perverts - no wait a minute, LOADS of them really like that!! Bring back the birch - a good caning should sort them out...


    Ian

  10. #30
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Digidurst
    In my opinion, that means that they [children] should not be photographed in any way, shape or form that might evoke a provocative response and parents who have allowed such are either stupid or unwilling to face the reality of the world we live in.
    Sorry, but there have been actual cases of pedophiles who have been found to be aroused by the absolutely most casual fully-clothed holiday snapshots of children (and had collections of such snaps). So what you propose is a total ban on all photography of children (courts have also ruled in some cases that non-photographic representations, where no child was involved at all, may still be offenses). Such absolutist comments are appropriate for the Taliban, but have no place in a free society (like the one that lets you post whatever opinions you like).

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin